Introduction

Industrial policy and competition policy have a common goal - ensuring sustainable economic growth and improving the welfare of the population, based on the assumption that the state seeks to maximize social utility. The difference between industrial and competition policy lies in the means used to accelerate the pace and increase sustainability economic development. The main method of implementing industrial policy is to provide a limited number of agents with national economy additional resources that can be used for investment. From this point of view, a set of measures aimed at removing part of the rental income from the extractive industries through taxation and distributing them through the budget to other sectors of the economy based on one or another criterion.

IN modern conditions Reform is becoming an important factor influencing the relationship between competition and industrial policy in Russia. technical regulation, within which the entire system of establishing mandatory requirements to manufactured products and production processes, confirmation of conformity, as well as liability for violation of mandatory requirements. On the one hand, the formation technical regulations serves as the most important condition for reducing uncertainty for all stakeholders (especially consumers and producers) and, accordingly, a factor in saving on transaction costs. On the other hand, the emergence of technical regulations can have a significant impact (including negative) on the conditions of competition in the relevant product markets

The work is based on the achievements of economic theory and practice of world civilization. It reveals the role and features antimonopoly policy states. Therefore, this topic can be considered very relevant today.

The purpose is to examine the state's antitrust policy.

The goal allowed us to formulate the tasks that were solved in this work:

1) Consider industrial policy, competition support policy

2) Identify conflicts between industrial policy and competition policy

Industrial policy

Industrial policy is defined as a set of administrative, financial and economic measures aimed at ensuring a new quality of economic growth of the country by increasing innovation activity, efficiency and competitiveness of production in order to expand the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets in the interests of improving the well-being of citizens.

Updating industrial policy and the urgent need for it speedy development and practical implementation are due to the following circumstances:

The country's technological potential is rapidly being destroyed;

Technological lag behind advanced countries last years acquires a general character;

Technological lag, which has reached a critical limit, threatens the loss of the very ability to create competitive high-tech products;

Only a quarter of all technologies correspond to the world level, many of which cannot be converted into competitive advantages at the stage of industrial production.

World experience shows that the basic principles of the development and implementation of industrial policy, ensuring increased national competitiveness in the main areas of socio-economic development modern societies and states are:

Formation of industrial policy as an important component of the national strategy with active equal participation in its development and implementation by the state, business, scientific and public organizations;

Transition from the existing sectoral industrial policy to a policy of concentration of national efforts and state support for competitive companies;

A change in priorities in the selection of industrial policy objects in accordance with the global trend, the increasing importance of high-tech industries with high added value while the role of traditional resource-intensive industries is decreasing;

Creating conditions for the transition to a knowledge-intensive economy with the determining role of production, distribution and use of knowledge and information as the main factors of sustainable economic growth.

Modern economic theories There are two basic concepts of state industrial policy:

Tough state industrial policy with the unconditional predominance of methods of direct budgetary subsidization of industries or individual ambitious projects based on strong-willed, administrative levers; this model was used, as a rule, in the early stages of industrial development;

Modern national industrial policy with the unconditional predominance of methods of indirect (financial and economic) stimulation of the production of competitive products and services.

The system-forming goal of industrial policy in the conditions of Russia’s entry into the world market space is to increase national competitiveness (i.e., the ability to produce and consume goods and services in conditions of competition with other countries), compliance international standards and expanding the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets as the main source of increasing the well-being of the country's citizens with a continuous increase in their living standards.

The main task of the state in this area is to create whole system ensuring the development of knowledge-intensive production in Russia. This is not about supporting industries or sub-sectors according to the canons of a planned economy, but about supporting individual industries and technologies that determine the possibilities of technological breakthroughs and are significant for the global economy.

Based on these premises, the main tasks of industrial policy can be formulated as follows:

Stimulation scientific and technological progress;

Carrying out structural reform of the scientific and industrial sphere;

Creation of institutional foundations and infrastructure of the knowledge economy, ensuring the practical development of scientific achievements;

Creating incentives for investing in new knowledge and new technologies;

Accumulation, development and effective use of intellectual (human and structural) capital of the new economy;

Direction investment flows in intellectual capital;

Priority development of the education sector;

Redistribution of part of the income from traditional sectors of the economy to solve the problems of scientific and technological progress;

Informatization of society and implementation of management reform on this basis.

Export-oriented model. The essence of the export-oriented model of industrial policy is to fully encourage industries focused on exporting their products. The main incentive measures are aimed at developing and supporting competitive export industries. The priority task is to produce competitive products and enter the international market with them. Important advantages of this model are the inclusion of the country in world economy and access to global resources and technologies; development of strong competitive sectors of the economy, which provide a multiplier effect for the development of other, “domestic” sectors and are the main supplier Money to the budget; attracting foreign currency to the country and investing it in the development of production and services of the national economy.

Successful examples of an export-oriented industrial policy model include countries such as Japan, South Korea, Chile, “Asian tigers” (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore), in Lately China.

At the same time, there are also negative examples - Venezuela, Mexico.

The import substitution model is a strategy for ensuring the domestic market based on the development of national production. Import substitution involves pursuing protectionist policies and maintaining fixed rate national currency(thereby preventing inflation). The import substitution model helps to improve the structure of the balance of payments, normalize domestic demand, ensure employment, develop engineering production, and scientific potential.

This situation was typical for the economies of the USSR and the DPRK. Also, under the influence of various objective economic, geopolitical and institutional factors, carried out after the collapse of the USSR and before today Russia's industrial policy is of a clearly import-substituting nature.

Innovation activity includes both all stages of scientific and technical activity, as well as production, which ensures the development and implementation of innovations, and activities that create conditions for the further functioning of innovations (i.e., intermediary activities). The innovation model is based on the process of economic development of the country in both domestic and foreign markets, based on the latest trends in technological and social development using high-tech and capital-intensive production.

The innovative model helps maintain the country’s scientific and technical potential, and, consequently, its competitiveness in the international arena; stimulates the development of educational institutions and provides the economy with highly educated and qualified personnel; promotes job creation within the country and ensures domestic demand; maintains a stable and high exchange rate of the national currency and the welfare of the population; focuses on the development of the machine-processing complex, machine tool and instrument making with high added value of manufactured products.

Discipline: "Institutional Economics"

Topic: "State industrial policy"

Student group X - M (s) - 31 V.V. Severova

Teacher Danilchik T.L.

Khabarovsk 2014

Introduction

1. Competitiveness

2. Improving market mechanisms

3. Formation of the technological base

4. Carrot and stick for investment

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. Classified as protective, aimed at preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country’s industrial structure to changes in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences on the development of the country's industry, based on their vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long-term perspective.

Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as PP) as one of the main functions of the state in the general view is a strategy focused on the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term “industrial policy” came to Russia in the early 90s. to indicate the regulatory role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country. In the era of administrative-planned economy in the USSR, the need for such a term did not exist, because the entire economic system essentially meant PP. There was no alternative system for making decisions from the state on investment by private business; the entire strategy for the economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined centrally from a single economic center. In the representation system market economy it was a super-industrial policy with its achievements, shortcomings and even failures. The need to identify the role of the state in developing and implementing a strategy for the long-term development of priority industries under the dominance of market relations arose due to the completely obvious “market failures” in the field of projects not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions of state industrial policy, we will consider the main ones, namely:

the influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production;

government activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms;

impact of the state on industry structure production;

the state's ability to stimulate the investment process.

1. Competitiveness

The need for the state to increase the competitiveness of industrial production is dictated by such fundamental differences in the modern developed market economy as the increasing intellectualization of industrial production, the strengthening of the role of innovation and the transnationalization of the activities of industrial firms.

As a result, the competitiveness of the country's industry increasingly depends on factors such as the quality of labor resources, the strength of ties between industrial firms, higher education institutions and research institutes, the ability to creatively master foreign technologies, the speed of spread of technological and other innovations in industry; the capacity of the domestic market and the level of requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics, the presence of clusters of technologically related and geographically close enterprises producing products that are in demand in foreign markets. The role of the state, which not only finances the bulk of general education educational institutions and universities, but also to a large extent determines the attitude of society towards education and the prestige of the profession of a scientist and teacher, in creating an education system that meets the requirements of modern industrial production, is very significant. It is clear that proactive government industrial policy must be supported by a focused education policy. For countries with transition economy The highest priority areas include a sharp expansion of training of specialists in the field of management, marketing and business law. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and high-priority applied scientific research programs, a very large positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas. Firstly, the creation of government structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities. Secondly, state coordination of R&D programs, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as government research organizations, participate. Important factor maintaining the competitiveness of the country's industry - the presence of conditions conducive to the rapid spread of technological and other innovations in it. Since these conditions are determined primarily by the dynamics of the investment process, state activities in this regard are implemented in the macro sphere economic policy, the success of which depends on the ability to create favorable investment climate monetary and tax budget policy. Moreover, due to the lack of financial resources for small innovating firms it often serves as an insurmountable barrier at the stage of introducing scientific and technical knowledge into new, economically feasible technological processes and types of products, the state should promote the expansion of financing opportunities for innovative businesses. The state has the opportunity to exert a significant influence on such conditions for the competitiveness of the country's industry, such as the presence of a capacious domestic market and the strict requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics. All developed market economies, in order to maintain the competitiveness of their industries, stimulate demand for high-tech products through government procurement in industries owned by the state or under strict government regulation (electric power, primarily nuclear, telecommunications, aviation and railway transport), as well as to supply the military needs of the country. At the same time, discrimination is widely practiced foreign companies- manufacturers of similar products.

. Improving market mechanisms

State activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms and mitigate their inherent imperfections are the second important component of modern industrial policy. The areas in which imperfections in market coordination mechanisms appear are different: Firstly, production public goods and services (for example, scientific research, health services, weapons production, etc.). It is believed that in the production of these types of goods there is a fundamental difference between the parameters of efficiency on the basis of which private firms operate and efficiency from the point of view of society as a whole. Secondly, market imperfections are associated with the consequences of interdependence and complementarity of investments, manifested in the form of “externalities”, in particular when part of the profit from a particular investment can be “captured” by other investors associated with it. Thirdly, competition through innovation can hardly satisfy the principles of perfect competition. “Competition through new products and processes,” the paper argues American economists, - is imperfect both in essence and in results. Without the lure of higher returns, there would be no motive for innovation." Since the development of industry is becoming increasingly innovative in nature, and innovative competition, in fact, is imperfect, with huge external effects, a strong monopoly element, the possibilities for the development of industrial production on the basis of exclusively market coordination mechanisms seem to be very limited.Fourthly, market economies are characterized by complex problems that make it difficult to allocate resources with an emphasis on the long term.

In a market economy, comprehensive Information Support industrial firms serve as a necessary condition for their survival and effective operation. A huge amount of work on collecting and publishing information of an economic, scientific, technical, demographic and similar nature, widely used by industrial firms when making investment and other decisions, is carried out in countries with developed market economies by government departments, although they, of course, are not the only source of information used. information firms.

It should be emphasized that government agencies disseminate the information they collect without any restrictions and at affordable prices. Much attention is paid to the use of information collected by the state to develop a system of indicators used to analyze the state of general economic conditions and its short-term forecasting. A very important aspect of the state’s information activity in market economy countries is the development of medium- and long-term forecasts for economic development, including industry, countries and world markets for the most important industrial goods.

. Formation of technological base

Influence the achievement of dynamic competitive advantages State industrial policy can also influence the technologies used in the country's industry, and accordingly its sectoral structure. The most obvious influence of the state on the technological structure of industrial production was manifested in the creation of state industrial enterprises and the nationalization of entire industries. At the same time, the historical experience of market economies does not provide grounds for unambiguous and unconditional assessments of the role of state entrepreneurship in the development of industrial production. If we assume that by means of state policy it is possible to increase the national income of a country at the expense of its competitors by stimulating technologies and industries that generate higher “rent” than other technologies and industries, then, obviously, the presence of such an opportunity for a long time contradicts the operating conditions systems competitive markets and industries with free intercountry and intersectoral flow of capital.

The creation of state industrial companies is not the only and, in modern conditions, far from the most optimal instrument for the state to influence the technological structure of the country’s industry.

. Carrot and stick for investment

Another, no less important task of the state’s macroeconomic policy, as applied to the problems of modernizing the country’s industrial structure, is to create favorable conditions for a dynamic investment process.

The following instruments of government influence on the dynamics of the investment process are actively used:

public investment, and not only in infrastructure;

tax incentives for investment;

containment of prices for equipment through preferential customs duties on its import;

influencing interest rates and maintaining them below market levels.

Very important role in financing investment programs Bank credit plays a role, and the state actively influenced both the cost of the loan and the direction of its flows. Played a dominant role internal sources(retained earnings and depreciation) and bank loans. State financial institutions played an important role in financing investment programs in many dynamically developing countries. The state's influence on price proportions in order to stimulate the investment process was not limited to the regulation of interest rates. Specialists World Bank indicate that in the specified countries tax, tariff and monetary policy not only filmed part investment risk from investing firms and moderately suppressed interest rates, but also controlled the import of capital, and also maintained relatively low prices for investment goods. At the same time, the possibilities of using price imbalances created by government regulation in order to stimulate the investment process and economic growth of the country are significantly narrowing as its involvement in world economic relations increases. And about one more incentive option investment policy aimed at developing the real sector of the economy - use tax system. Two important areas can be identified tax policy states that can have a significant impact on the development of the country's industry.

Firstly, by influencing through taxes the level of savings of the population, depreciation funds of firms and their retained earnings, i.e. on the size of potential sources of financing firms' investment programs, the state is able to influence the most important macroeconomic proportions, in particular the distribution of national income between accumulation and consumption.

Secondly, using targeted tax benefits, as well as legislation regarding depreciation, the state is able to influence the ratio between firms’ investments in the active and passive parts of fixed assets, the rate of reproduction of fixed capital in the country’s industry, stimulate investment activity firms in priority areas from the point of view of the state, influence the regional placement of industrial investments.

5. Problems of state support for industry in Russia

It is obvious that if the main goal of the economic reform being carried out in Russia is the creation of a modern market economy, then the Russian state is obliged to perform the functions listed above, which are characteristic of all countries with a market economy. At the same time, the peculiarities of the current situation in the economy of our country require that the state not be limited only to these functions.

Overcoming negative trends in Russian industrial production and creating the preconditions for fundamental changes in its structure is impossible without a meaningful and targeted state industrial policy, and in the most favorable version, this policy should serve as an instrument for implementing the country's industrial development strategy based on public consensus. Such a strategy should be determined taking into account the uniqueness of the current situation in Russia. This uniqueness is due to a whole complex of technological and socio-political factors.

In socio-political terms, the current situation in Russia is determined by the sharp differentiation of incomes between a small group of the population and the bulk of it. During the years of reforms, a middle class has not developed in Russia, in the absence of which it is impossible to create a market economy of mass consumption and an adequate stable political regime of social-democratic or liberal orientation.

Meanwhile, up to now the transformation Russian economy occurs in the absence of any meaningful strategy for the industrial development of the country. In countries with a democratic orientation, the determination of an industrial development strategy is not the exclusive prerogative of central government bodies. This matter requires the active participation of representatives of industrial business circles, trade unions, independent research organizations, and regional authorities. At the same time, central government structures, acting as a participant and coordinator of the development of the country’s industrial development strategy, offer their assessments of the prospects for the development of the world economy and its individual regions (primarily those most closely related to the country’s industry), world markets for important industrial goods, scientific and technical progress, environmental situation, etc., formulate their ideas about the desired directions of industrial development of the country.

For such work, certain organizational structures are created in which there is a thorough discussion of problems related to the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country, including problems of a sectoral and regional nature. The activities of such structures not only make it possible to get a more complete and clear picture of the problems and prospects for the development of the country's industry, its most vulnerable areas, potential sources of growth and competitive advantages, but also creates the prerequisites for the formation of public consensus regarding the vision of the future of the country's industry. Such consent serves, in particular, as an important condition for the rapid legislative implementation of measures in the field of industrial policy. The function of the leader in the creation and coordination of the activities of these structures should be performed by an authoritative department of the executive branch, therefore the Japanese experience deserves the closest study and use.

We have to admit that at present there is no department in the executive power of Russia that, due to its intellectual potential and authority, can assume the functions of initiator and coordinator of the development of a strategy for the country's industrial development. The development of public consensus regarding the vision of the future of Russia is also complicated by the blurred values ​​of the main part of the country's population due to the collapse of the totalitarian atheistic state and the negative consequences of the reforms currently being implemented for the majority of the country's population. Realizing that the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country and an adequate state industrial policy requires colossal collective efforts, we will note only some of the contours of such a strategy and policy. The country's industrial development strategy involves identifying the main goals in a more or less long-term perspective, the main obstacles to the implementation of these goals and the means of overcoming these obstacles and achieving the goals. The most important strategic goals for the development of Russian industry, it seems, should include the preservation and improvement of the basic elements of life support infrastructure, improving the quality of life (physical and mental health of the nation, ecology, education and housing); maintaining a sufficient level of the country's defense capability.

The main obstacles to the implementation of these goals are the continuing development of a deep and protracted general economic and industrial crisis, without any positive changes in the technological structure of industrial production, an ever-deepening gap between financial sector and the state of Russian industry, the increasing shortage of investment resources. Russia's state industrial policy should be focused on overcoming these obstacles and be proactive in nature, based on a vision of the desired image of the industrial structure in a more or less long-term perspective. As for the technological structure of Russian industry, it should be built on the basis of a thorough assessment of the existing scientific and technological potential, taking into account the main directions of global scientific and technological progress and a number of factors. To do this, it is necessary to determine: in which technologies, based on considerations of national security in its various aspects, one’s own production potential is needed and what level it should reach; in which technologies Russia has a chance to achieve a breakthrough and strengthen its competitiveness; satisfying what needs is appropriate through the import of industrial products and technologies. Based on this, the following directions of government activity within the framework of industrial policy can be determined. There is a need for active, coordinating activities of government departments in the field of technological forecasting and the development of a set of criteria on the basis of which priority technologies for Russian industry should be selected.

The state can help increase the technological potential of Russian industry by creating closed systems of “scientific research and development - production of high-tech products in Russian companies- large-scale purchases of these products by the state , and stimulating the influx of foreign capital and technology by admitting foreign companies to the production of high-tech products in the country and government procurement of these products. Most likely, both options should be combined depending on the state of scientific and technological potential in specific areas of science and technology. Necessary government funding fundamental science and applied scientific research for priority technologies. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and the highest priority programs of applied scientific research, an important positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas: the creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities; coordination activities of the state in conducting R&D, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as state research organizations, participate.

Updating the technological structure of Russian industry is possible only in the conditions of a dynamic investment process, which depends to a decisive extent on tax, budget and monetary policy states. This implies the need to reform the tax system with an emphasis on creating preferential conditions for savings and capital accumulation, as well as liberalizing monetary policy and creating conditions for additional emissions into industrial investments. In this regard, it seems necessary to create state investment development banks, without which a quick way out of the deep investment crisis is hardly possible. A realistic assessment of the capabilities of the capital market as a source of financing investment programs requires recognizing that its role in Russia for many years to come will most likely be generally insignificant. Therefore, the state should focus primarily on creating conditions that encourage own sources accumulations in industrial structures (depreciation policy is important in this regard), and providing these structures with long-term credit resources.

The critical situation in Russian industry with non-payments dictates the need for an active state policy at the microeconomic level, including: - the allocation of large industrial enterprises and financial-industrial groups that, due to their technological and managerial potential, are capable of financial condition for the role of leaders; creating conditions that facilitate the absorption by leaders or their taking control of industrial enterprises that have technological development potential, but do not have financial capabilities its implementation; liquidation of industrial enterprises that are hopeless in all respects while simultaneously retraining their personnel and providing them with employment.

Despite the importance of the active state policy to create a competitive economic environment through privatization, demonopolization, and support for small industrial entrepreneurship, the state should promote the development of cooperation as the main social groups, and enterprises within industries and their complexes.

The development of social partnership at the level of "state - industrial sectoral associations - trade unions" could help maintain macroeconomic stabilization through the implementation of one or another policy of regulating prices and incomes. With all the dangers that the cartelization of industry is fraught with, the creation of industry associations of industrial enterprises such as cartels (on a temporary basis and with the development of clear criteria for the activities of firms included in the cartels) could help stabilize industrial production and modernize its technological base. An important direction of state industrial policy in the coming years should be the mitigation of negative social consequences caused by changes in the structure of industrial production. It is obvious that this problem will be especially acute over the coming years. To mitigate it, the state is obliged to implement a whole range of measures, including a broad program of public works (in particular, to modernize infrastructure), a program to retrain the workforce and increase its mobility, as well as provide sufficient protection from excessive foreign competition in the industries that are most important from the point of view of maintaining employment. Finally, it is necessary to significantly increase the efficiency of management of industrial enterprises that remain state property.

Conclusion

In recent years, the problem of government influence on industrial development countries has become increasingly relevant. In this regard, the state industrial policy of Russia should now become an integral part of the state economic policy (SEP), largely ensuring the achievement of its goals. Therefore, the development and implementation of the GSP is the most important task government controlled. Determining the features of the formation and implementation mechanism of state industrial policy is one of the most important theoretical, methodological and practical tasks of market transformations.

The degree of development of the problem. One of the reasons for the underestimation of state industrial policy in the management system of the transition economy. is the weakness of the scientific study of the significance of the GSP for the Russian economy.

Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that on a common platform, the needs for the implementation of PP have risen and many doctrines are competing with each other. All considered concepts differ in methods of implementation, in methods of implementation, in a system of goals and values. The need for a holistic state industrial and economic strategy is obvious and relevant throughout the years of radical economic reforms. Almost all sensible and nationally oriented groups in society are in favor of PP. Against the PP are only the top of cosmopolitan capital in the largest domestic raw materials companies and the ruling bureaucracy serving their interests. It is obvious that the absence of software in the context of the rapid degradation of the industrial base and social conditions life of the country is nonsense, explained by the unity and organization of its opponents while the disunity of its supporters. The main subject of industrial development is always the state represented by a set of institutions of economic power that set the “rules of the game” in industrial strategy and select winners and losers, i.e. partially replacing the functions of market competition, which liberals are always so afraid of. In addition, home-grown interpreters of Hayek-Mises ideas are so obviously tied to the interests of energy and raw materials companies built into global market given products, that any talk about PP is perceived by them absolutely “correctly”, since in modern Russian conditions, this means the inevitable redistribution of income from transnational “raw materials” in favor of national “industrialists” with the help of the economic power of the state. Therefore, all that liberals demand from the state is the preservation and strengthening of the “competitive” regime in the economy, “forgetting” that energy and raw materials monopolies feel most at ease in the conditions of such “competition”, cheaply buying up all the necessary resources within the country (including labor strength and state support in the form, for example, of the notorious mineral extraction tax, which created unprecedented opportunities for avoiding taxation of differential rent) and selling at high prices finished products both in the global and domestic markets. Super profits settle in offshore zones and Western banks.

PP issues are real political-economic issues in the theory and practice of reforms, because they affect the fundamental economic interests of the main strata of society. They address deep issues of creation, distribution and appropriation of social wealth. And as long as economic power is in the hands of “transnationals,” the state will diligently avoid issues of industrial strategy, replacing it with such “important” reforms as the monetization of benefits, the commercialization of science and education, endless shake-ups of the management apparatus, etc.

industrial policy market mechanism

Literature

1.Zevin L.Z. " Economic structures different levels in global processes: features of interaction. Scientific report from IMEPI RAS. - M: EPICON, 2009, pp. 8-9.

2.Tatarkin A. Industrial policy as the basis for systemic modernization of the Russian economy // Probl. theory and practice of management. - 2011 - N 1. - P.8-21.

.Pilipenko I. Cluster policy in Russia // Society and Economics. - 2009 - N 8. - P.28-64.

.Zavadnikov V. Industrial policy in Russia / V. Zavadnikov, Yu. Kuznetsov // Econ. policy. - 2011. - N 3. - P.5-17.

.Zeltyn A.S. State industrial policy in market economies// IVF. - 2012. - N 3. - P.42-60.

.Ivanov V.S. Rational management of territory as a factor in the development of industrial policy // Microeconomics. - 2009. - N 5. - P.124-127.

.Abramov M. On industrial policy and tax regulation // Free Thought. - 2009. - N 1. - P.101-116.

.Abramov M.D. Industrial policy and tax regulation // EKO. - 2009. - N 1. - P. 165-173.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

State industrial policy is one of the most debated concepts in the domestic economic literature. Discussions are being held both about the content of the concept of industrial policy and about the directions of implementation of industrial policy in Russia.

The term “industrial policy” entered Russian economic literature in the early 1990s and was borrowed from Western economic literature, the original name being “industrial policy”. The borrowing of the concept of industrial policy by disparate specialists has led to the emergence of different interpretations of the content of industrial policy in the domestic literature.

In domestic literature, along with the term “industrial policy”, the term “structural policy” is also used, left over from the times of the state planning concept; often these two terms are given a synonymous meaning. In Western literature, structural policy refers to institutional transformations, such as privatization, monopoly reform, promoting the development of small and medium-sized businesses, etc.

The evolution of views and the need for a unified terminology led to the following interpretation of industrial policy.

Industrial policy is defined as a set of government actions aimed at purposefully changing the structure of the economy by creating more favorable conditions for the development of certain (priority) sectors and industries.

Another definition of industrial policy was given by L.I. Abalkin.

Industrial policy is a system of measures aimed at progressive changes in the structure of industrial production in accordance with selected national goals and priorities. The central issue and subject of industrial policy are inter-industry proportions and structural changes in industry, and not issues of industrial development in general and, say, intra-industry competition.

Finally, the definition of industrial policy given by specialists from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, industrial policy is a set of measures carried out by the state in order to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of domestic industry and form it modern structure that contributes to the achievement of these goals. Industrial policy is a necessary complement to structural policies aimed at increasing social welfare. When developing industrial policy, it is important to determine goals and priorities established on the basis of strategic guidelines for production and commercial activities economic entities and social activities of the state.

As follows from these definitions, the implementation of industrial policy presupposes the presence of clear government priorities in relation to sectors of the national economy. The goal of industrial policy is to change the existing sectoral structure of the national economy, increasing the share of priority sectors in the created national product.

Industrial policy pursues other goals than sectoral ones. If industrial policy pursues the goal of increasing the national economic efficiency of the industry and is implemented primarily through short-term measures, then industrial policy pursues the goal of increasing the efficiency of the national economy as a whole, eliminating intersectoral problems and ensuring progressive changes in the structure of production of the social product, which requires a long-term decision-making horizon.

Among the main instruments of the state’s industrial policy are the following:

1) budget policy instruments: provision of various types of subsidies and loans from funds state budget, implementation of state investment policy in certain sectors of the economy with the aim of developing the production base, infrastructure facilities, forming growth poles, etc.

2) tax policy instruments: the introduction of different tax regimes depending on the industry, the provision of tax benefits in priority industries, an accelerated depreciation procedure. The application of different tax regimes in different industries and regions can have a significant stimulating function, changing costs and sectoral profitability of production, which, in turn, affects the sectoral structure of investment in fixed capital, redirecting investments to priority sectors of the national economy and increasing their competitiveness.

3) monetary policy instruments aimed at regulating the level of monetization of the economy, the volume of savings and lending in the national economy, as well as the exchange rate of the national currency: discount rate, operations on open market, the norm of mandatory reservation.

4) instruments of institutional policy: improvement of property relations; stimulating the transition of enterprises to more effective forms business organization; change of property relations - privatization and nationalization; licensing; legislative formation and support of new market institutions, market infrastructure.

5) instruments of foreign economic policy: export promotion (export loans and guarantees, customs and tax benefits, subsidies), import or export restrictions (customs tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping investigations, establishment of technological and environmental regulations and standards), changes in trade duties, membership in international economic organizations and the conclusion of customs unions.

6) investment policy instruments: creating a favorable investment climate and promoting investment in those sectors whose development is a priority for the state;

7) training and retraining of specialists for priority sectors.

Thus, the implementation of industrial policy involves significant government intervention in the functioning of economic system. This raises the question of the justification of its implementation, especially within the framework of the currently dominant liberal market system. economic concept(neoclassical theory) and assessing its effectiveness.

Within the framework of neoclassical theory, industrial policy is viewed as unlawful government intervention in the economy, distorting the operation of market mechanisms and preventing the effective (optimal) distribution of resources. According to this point of view, the state is unable to determine the true points of growth, so any state priorities in relation to sectors and industries will lead to a decrease in overall economic efficiency.

In accordance with the liberal market concept, the following main arguments can be made against the implementation of industrial policy.

1. Industrial policy distorts market signals and, accordingly, leads to ineffective decisions by economic entities at the micro level, which leads to the emergence of more significant imbalances.

2. The possibility of setting government priorities for the development of individual industries can lead to lobbying and corruption, as a result of which ineffective industries receive priorities.

3. The state cannot accurately determine the priorities of industrial policy in the long term. The experience of most countries shows the ineffectiveness of industrial policy instruments in the long term.

4. Structure modern economy characterized by the predominance of large, diversified companies, reduces the ability to regulate individual industries and sectors.

The question arises as to what justifies government intervention in the natural development of the national economy.

The arguments in favor of industrial policy are:

1. The market is efficient only with relatively small deviations from the optimum. Eliminating large structural imbalances requires government intervention.

2. When making decisions, market actors are usually guided by short-term goals, which can lead to deviation from the long-term optimum.

3. The operation of the market mechanism can lead to high social and political costs for society.

4. Emerging industries during their formation period may turn out to be uncompetitive due to unfavorable initial conditions.

Thus, the question arises of assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy. Under what conditions will it contribute to improving social welfare, and under what conditions will it not?

The following main goals of industrial policy can be cited:

1) ensuring national security and reducing dependence on external factors;

2) solving social problems and ensuring employment;

3) ensuring competitive advantages of individual industries;

4) stimulating investment activity in target industries by providing favorable operating conditions, especially in industries that have a large indirect effect on the development of the national economy; etc.

Industrial policy, as a rule, involves creating more favorable conditions for the development of priority sectors and curbing growth in some other sectors of the national economy.

Consequently, as a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy, one can use the net gain of the national economy from accelerating the rate of development of some industries and slowing down the rate of development of others. However, there are serious methodological difficulties associated with measuring this indicator.

Thus, we can conclude that the implementation of industrial policy is justified in conditions of a serious structural imbalance in the economy, which cannot be eliminated only under the influence of the market mechanism, which necessitates government intervention.

The following levels of industrial policy can be distinguished:

1. Level of state industrial policy. At this level, the formation and implementation of measures for macrostructural transformations, the creation of favorable conditions for such transformations and the adaptation or neutralization of their adverse consequences takes place.

2. The industry (sector) level of industrial policy determines the specific goals and activities of the state in relation to a particular industry in a broad or narrow sense.

3. The regional level of industrial policy determines the goals and activities of the state in relation to the industrial development of individual regions.

Due to the fact that industrial policy affects the functioning of the entire national economy, in order to make decisions regarding the choice of goals and priorities of industrial policy, a thorough analysis of the state of the national economy and the determination of a long-term strategy for the socio-economic development of the state is necessary. In this regard, in the economic literature it is customary to distinguish the following three types of industrial policy:

1) internally oriented (import substitution);

2) export-oriented;

3) innovation-oriented (as a special case, resource-saving).

Internally oriented industrial policy

The import substitution model is based on the strategy of meeting domestic demand through the development of national production. An important component of the import substitution policy is the protectionist policy on the part of the state, maintaining a low exchange rate of the national currency and stimulating the production of products that replace imported analogues.

The main positive results of the application of internally oriented industrial policy are:

Improving the structure of the balance of payments;

Ensuring employment and, as a consequence, growth in domestic effective demand;

Reducing the economy’s dependence on the outside world;

Development of capital-creating industries in connection with the growing demand for buildings, structures, machinery and equipment.

Negative results of the implementation of import substitution may be associated with the following processes:

The weakening of international competition in the country’s domestic market and, as a consequence, the technological lag of the national economy from developed countries;

Creating overly favorable conditions for domestic producers, which, in turn, can lead to a weakening of their competitiveness;

Ineffective micromanagement;

Saturation of the domestic market with lower-quality domestic products, due to protectionist government measures that limit access to the market for high-quality imported products.

Examples of the implementation of domestically oriented industrial policy (import substitution) are India (1960-1980s), France (1950-1970s), Japan (after the Second World War) and China (1970-1980s). ), USSR, DPRK.

Export-oriented industrial policy

The main objective of an export-oriented industrial policy is to promote the development of export industries whose products are competitive in the international market. Among the tools used by the state in implementing this type of industrial policy are:

Establishing tax and customs benefits for exporting enterprises, providing them with preferential loans;

Carrying out a policy of a weak exchange rate of the national currency;

Measures to create favorable conditions for the development of export-oriented and related industries;

Development of export infrastructure;

Simplification of the customs regime.

The main advantages of the export-oriented model are:

Strengthening the integration ties of the national economy with the world economy and, accordingly, access to technologies and resources;

The development of competitive industries, which provides a multiplier effect for the development of the national economy as a whole, both through the chain of intersectoral connections and through the growth of effective demand from the population employed in these industries;

Inflow of foreign exchange resources into the country due to growth in exports;

Attracting additional investments, including foreign ones.

The most successful examples of the implementation of an export-oriented development model are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong (1960-1980s), Chile, China (1980-1990s) and India (1990s), in a broad understanding of industrial policy (as a structural policy), this includes US agricultural policy.

At the same time, there are also unsuccessful attempts to implement a similar model of industrial policy. First of all, these are Mexico, Venezuela and a number of other countries Latin America(1980s).

Despite the significant benefits that society can receive from the implementation of an export-oriented industrial policy, under some conditions it can lead to negative consequences.

For example, in the case when export-oriented growth is realized at the expense of the raw materials sector of the national economy, which may be dictated, for example, by political or financial reasons, the following negative processes may occur:

Deepening the resource orientation of the economy;

Increased corruption in government bodies responsible for regulating foreign trade operations;

The outflow of labor and financial resources from the manufacturing industry to the mining industry, which negatively affects the long-term competitiveness of the national economy (for example, Venezuela);

Decline in innovation activity due to the weakening of the manufacturing industry (“Dutch disease”);

Stagnation in the manufacturing industry leads to the need to import new equipment and other high-tech products from abroad, making the country dependent on foreign manufacturers (similar processes are currently occurring in Russia).

It should be noted that the export of raw materials can serve as a source of economic growth only in the short term. The long-term prospects for the development of the national economy with an export-oriented orientation are doubtful.

However, the negative consequences of implementing an export-oriented model arise not only in the case of a focus on the export of raw materials; an example is Mexico, where the orientation of the country’s economy on the export of highly processed products implied the use of a significant share of imported components in its production, which made the economy of this country dependent on external suppliers. When the cost of labor in Mexico increased, products assembled in Mexico were no longer competitive in the world market.

Practice shows that failures in the implementation of export-oriented industrial policy were associated mainly with a decrease in the diversification of the national economy and the strengthening of the role of industries dependent on world market conditions, which, when conditions worsened on the world market for exported products, led to a crisis.

When choosing this type of industrial policy, it is necessary to take into account the scale of the country, the level of scientific and technological development, and the availability of production resources. In this regard, two types of export orientation arise.

The first type is due to the small size of the national economy and the relatively simple structure of the economy, which leads to the relative disadvantage of developing import substitution due to limited domestic demand. An example is Singapore.

The second type is caused by the country having a significant competitive advantage over other countries. An example is the People's Republic of China, which has a huge reserve of cheap labor, which, in the conditions of a saturated domestic market, forces it to look for new markets abroad. At the same time, predominantly extensive methods of expanding production significantly reduce the possibilities for the development of knowledge-intensive production.

So, the main advantages of an export-oriented industrial policy are the international cooperation,improving competitiveness national industry, deepening integration into international division labor. However, one should be wary of a decrease in export diversification, which increases the dependence of the national economy on external conditions.

Innovation-oriented industrial policy

This type of industrial policy is fundamentally different from those described above. The main task in implementing this policy is to intensify innovation activities and introduce new technologies at domestic enterprises.

Considering that innovative activity has a significant lag between investing in an innovative project and its payback (payback period) and a high risk of non-return on investments, investment decisions that are beneficial from the point of view of society at the level of business entities may not always be made, since short-term ones predominate in their behavior goals.

Numerous researchers note that the higher the level of competition (the lower the level of concentration) in the industry, the less the tendency of firms to invest in innovative development, and the main source of financing innovative activities is the economic profit received by firms with monopoly power in the market. Therefore, the state should stimulate this type activity and direct it in the right direction, especially in the case of industries with low level concentration.

The positive aspects of using an innovative type of development are:

Acceleration of scientific and technological progress;

Increasing the competitiveness of products in the international and domestic markets;

Increasing demand for highly qualified labor, which encourages the population to receive quality education;

Stability of the balance of payments and the exchange rate of the national currency, ensured by the high competitiveness of products.

Intensive development of capital-creating industries, mainly mechanical engineering, as well as industries with a high degree of processing of products, which are the basis for the economy of any industrialized country.

Despite its great attractiveness, innovation-oriented industrial policy has not been used so often in world practice, this is due to a number of difficulties associated with its implementation:

1) the need to attract significant investments in the development of R&D infrastructure and renewal of fixed production assets of industry, which, as a rule, requires the attraction of significant external borrowings;

2) the financial vulnerability of national enterprises at the initial stage leads to the need to use protectionist measures and non-market methods of stimulating R&D, which often meets resistance in state level;

3) national educational and professional institutions, as a rule, are unable to satisfy the growing need for highly qualified labor, therefore the implementation of this type of development must be accompanied by the implementation of various programs to increase the educational level of the population, as well as increase the quality of education.

Given the high capital intensity of the innovation model, it tends to be applied selectively in the most competitive industries. However, the overall effect of using this model applies to all sectors of the national economy.

As examples of model implementation innovative development We can cite countries such as Japan (1970-1990s), South Korea (1980-1990s), the USA, and countries of the European Union.

Note that the application of one or another type of industrial policy leads to the redistribution of production factors into priority sectors of the economy, which reduces the opportunities for the development of other sectors. For this reason, examples of the application of mixed types of industrial policies are very rare.

Industrial policy has a dynamic aspect, and after achieving the goals it sets, its priorities must be adjusted in accordance with the changed economic conditions and the existing structure of the economy. For this reason, almost every developed country implemented all three identified types of industrial policy in one form or another.

Based on an analysis of global experience in carrying out structural reforms, we can identify the following optimal strategy for implementing industrial policy for society.

Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the dynamic nature of industrial policy - over time, the need to stimulate the development of selected industries disappears, and the need to stimulate other industries arises.

Depending on the chosen industrial policy strategy, the state's sectoral policy in each specific industry should be determined.

The subject of industrial policy is the state, and not just any political power, but the state modern type- an abstract corporation that has its own legal entity, distinct from the personality of the rulers, including the government apparatus and the body of citizens (subjects), but not coinciding with either one, having clearly defined boundaries and existing only on the basis of recognition by other states.

INTRODUCTION 1-4

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives 5-12

Chapter 2. Directions of industrial policy and instruments. Principles of industrial policy. 13-28

Chapter 3. National objectives of industrial policy

Russia. 28-35

CONCLUSION.

The work contains 1 file

INTRODUCTION 1-4

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives 5-12

Chapter 2. Directions of industrial policy and instruments. Principles of industrial policy. 13-28

Chapter 3. National objectives of industrial policy

Russia. 28-35

CONCLUSION. 36-37

INTRODUCTION

Industrial policy is a set of actions of the state as an institution taken to influence the activities of economic entities (enterprises, corporations, entrepreneurs, etc.), as well as certain aspects of these activities related to the acquisition of factors of production, organization of production, distribution and sales of goods and services in all phases of the life cycle of an economic entity and the life cycle of its products.

In this concept of industrial policy, its object is the producer of goods and services (manufacturing enterprise, corporation, individual entrepreneur, etc.). This approach differs from the traditional understanding of industrial policy, according to which its object is usually considered to be large industrial and technological complexes, giant corporations or industries, usually consisting of large, capital-intensive industries. However, the structural changes that have occurred in recent decades - the development of new production technologies, financial instruments, organizational structures, the globalization of production, trade and finance, the increasing role of knowledge, information and technology in production processes, etc. - all this makes the traditional idea of ​​the object of industrial policy limited and inadequate.

The subject of industrial policy is the state, and not any political power, but a state of the modern type - an abstract corporation that has its own legal entity, distinct from the personality of the rulers, including the government apparatus and the totality of citizens (subjects), but not coinciding with either with another, having clearly defined boundaries and existing only on the basis of recognition by other states. Industrial policy is an attribute of a modern type of state and as such is not characteristic of other types of political organization (such as tribes, feudal hierarchies, pre-industrial empires, “failed states”, etc.).

By the beginning of the 1990s. in Europe and the United States, the state began to abandon direct management of engineering infrastructures, privatize the electric power industry, transport and communications, and transfer public utility infrastructures into concession.

Thus, at the end of the twentieth century, a strong conviction arose that industrial policy in its original sense had practically exhausted itself. “Hard” industrial policy was replaced by “soft” (liberal). Its goal was to ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in an open market, and the main instrument was a set of institutional and financial regulatory measures that indirectly affect the technical and technological development of the economy and literally “dissolve” in the general macroeconomic policy.

The fact that in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century in the public space various representatives of the business and political elite presented to the state a request for industrial policy, often in the formats of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, indicates deepest crisis a conceptual vision of how the economy should be structured.

At first glance, the need for an active industrial policy in the Russian Federation is determined by the fact that, unlike other economically developed countries that have experienced primary industrialization, Russia does not have structures capable of replacing the state as the subject of making large-scale technical and technological decisions. In turn, the idea of ​​Russia as an independent subject of history, having its own purpose, and therefore preserving its military-political and economic independence. Therefore, there is such a great interest among many people in returning to government bodies the function of the main design engineer and “assembler” of industry in society.

But this is only at first glance. In fact, in the Russian Federation, five different political and economic forces are requesting five different versions of industrial policy.

Firstly , industrial enterprises built back in Soviet times and industries formed on their basis offer the state to cover them with a “protectionist umbrella”, reorient them towards import substitution, protecting them from foreign competition with customs barriers and supporting exports with subsidies and low tariffs for services and products of natural monopolies.

Secondly , a special request for state industrial policy is made by large Russian integrated business groups (IBG), which successfully adapt to working conditions in the open market and, as a rule, have a raw material specialization. These companies are faced with extreme loads on the country’s infrastructure, with withdrawals of a significant share of natural resource rent from the budget and the inability to share the budget burden with other taxpayers. Therefore, IBGs are demanding that the state create preferences for them as the leading sector of the economy - “national champions”.

Third , the authorities of old industrial regions, having an outdated industry as an economic base, and not having an alternative offer of employment for the people employed in it, are forced to formulate and implement their own “industrial policy”. The regions would like to share responsibility (and most importantly, financing!) for this policy with the federal center, demanding from it self-determination not so much in relation to individual industries, technologies or enterprises, but rather to territorial production complexes.

Fourth , the so-called “technology lobby” is very influential in Russia, advocating state protectionism for innovative developments and the introduction of new technologies. Concerned about the loss of its position as a developer and seller of technology, it demands technological protectionism and preferences for Russian R&D.

Fifthly , a special group of agents interested in determining the state position in relation to national industry consists of representatives of that sector of the Russian economy that has fully adapted to life in the global market. They insist on abandoning “hard” industrial policy and on the transition to predominantly indirect state management of the economy through institutional (regulatory) measures. This is not so much an opposition to the state’s technological policy as it is against its separation from the general economic policy.

However, it should be taken into account that the main contradiction problematizing the possibility of an independent state industrial policy in Russia at the moment is the contradiction between the local nature of the majority of Russian industrial enterprises and the global economy in which they are already located. Since the 1998 default weak ruble created preferences for the Russian industry that allowed it to regain (albeit not completely) the national market and facilitate the promotion of certain types of its products on the world market. The old industry, designed for isolation and internal balance of the economy, came to life, restored internal connections and demanded resources. However, now the reserves for growth of Russian industry, provided by the weak ruble and low compared to world domestic prices for individual species resources (raw materials, transport and energy services, labor, etc.) were virtually exhausted. Further economic recovery should be ensured by new factors related to the integration of the Russian economy into the world economy.

It can be assumed that in the near future the main task of Russian industry will be integration into the world market. From this point of view, it is advisable to divide the entire set of economic agents not into raw materials and non-raw materials or market and non-market sectors, but into spheres adapted and not adapted to the global market. Based on this, it is necessary to define new principles of Russian industrial policy. The latter should become a policy focused not only on Russia's internal problems, but also on the shift in the development of the global economy.

The reduction in the risk of military conflicts in the world has created conditions for the development of a single economic space, and new communication technologies have facilitated its organizational development with new production, trade and financial structures. At the same time, the globalization of finance and trade has significantly outpaced the so-called “material” production, which is constrained by a long process of changing fixed assets. In addition, the development of new technologies required workers with new key qualifications that could not be trained instantly.

The critical situation for the old industry was further aggravated by the fact that local markets began to shrink not only due to the unprecedented growth in the scale and efficiency of distribution, but also due to the global universalization of consumption. In low price segments and in the markets for mass-produced goods, the national industry is forced to compete with the most efficient manufacturer in the world, who sells its products cheaper than anyone else. And in the higher price segments, where consumption has long become symbolic, aimed at the signs and myths of modern societies, one has to compete with the world's most expensive brands - the embodiment of these symbols.

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives

Industrial is the national policy of program-targeted regulation of the process of organizational, structural and technological modernization of industrial reproduction for the sake of a consistent increase in the output of high-tech products with high share added value and increased purchasing power of the employed and the entire population of the country.

The concept of industrial policy in Russia has both its own history and its own specifics, and therefore causes controversy between various representatives of government, business and society. During the period of liberal reforms, industrial policy was understood by many as lobbying or the return of state control over the economy, characteristic of the Soviet era, which caused a negative attitude even towards the term itself.

The main way of its implementation is program-targeted regulation, using strategic forecasting, structural and technological planning and a system of functionally specialized bodies, or state institutions. Upon achieving the set goal and putting forward a new one, the system of institutions is subject to transformation, during which a regrouping and redistribution of functions and powers occurs within the state between relevant areas and priorities. The creation of flexible, program-targeted institutions for the implementation of national industrial policy seems to be of particular importance.

Due to a number of reasons, Russia is integrating into the open world market later than other industrialized countries. Discrepancy in the rate of inclusion in global economy Russian industry, circulation systems, consumption and financial circulation for the Russian Federation acquire a much more dramatic character than for the “pioneer” countries of globalization. What suffers most in this situation is the old industry and old industrial regions, which are forced to pay for integration into the global market at the highest rates.

The integration of Russian industry into the global economy does not happen overnight and is not a frontal attack on the world market of all sectors and enterprises of the national industry. Russian industry, previously assembled into a technologically unified complex, on its way to the global market has expanded into a long string of enterprises solving sometimes disparate production, technological, trade, sales and financial and management problems. The old territorial production complexes also became internally stratified.

Nevertheless, globalization has laid down the main trends in the transformation of Russian industry:

1. Mastering new trading formats. Considering that in the modern economy trade drives production, in Russia we should expect explosive growth of retail chains and the development of new forms of market penetration (Internet trade, catalog trade, franchising, etc.). All this will require the development of industrial design, branding, and a qualitative change in the information environment on the market.

2. Achievement of Russian businesses of a size comparable to the global market. In solving this problem, Russian industrial enterprises will not necessarily have to join various types of holdings or vertically integrated companies. They can consolidate on the basis of a network principle as a kind of meta-corporation of suppliers and subcontractors, as well as competitors within homogeneous clusters.

According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. They are classified as protective, aimed at preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country’s industrial structure to the changes that have occurred in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences the development...

Share your work on social networks

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

ABSTRACT

Discipline: "Institutional Economics"

Topic: “State industrial policy”

Student of group X- M (s)- 31 V.V. Severov

Teacher Danilchik T.L.

Khabarovsk 2014

Introduction According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. Classified as protective, aimed at preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country’s industrial structure to changes in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences on the development of the country's industry, based on their vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long-term perspective. Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as IP), as one of the main functions of the state, in its most general form, is a strategy focused on the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term “industrial policy” came to Russia in the early 90s. to indicate the regulatory role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country. In the era of administrative-planned economy in the USSR, the need for such a term did not exist, because the entire economic system essentially meant PP. There was no alternative system for making decisions from the state on investment by private business; the entire strategy for the economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined centrally from a single economic center. In the system of ideas of a market economy, this was a super-industrial policy with its achievements, shortcomings and even failures. The need to identify the role of the state in developing and implementing a strategy for the long-term development of priority industries under the dominance of market relations arose due to the completely obvious “market failures” in the field of projects not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions of state industrial policy, we will consider the main ones, namely: 2.Improving market mechanisms 3.Formation of the technological base 4. Carrot and stick for investment Conclusion Literature

Introduction

According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the O industry of the country industrial policy. Classified as protective And meaningful, focused on preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign O strange competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country's industrial structure to the changes that have occurred in the structure of demand and the changed conditions of competition in the world market, and the initiation A tive, when the state actively influences the development of industrial O of the country, based on his vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long-term perspective.

Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as PP) as one of the main functions of the state at gift in its most general form is a strategy, a guiding n aimed at the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term "industry" n naya politics" came to Russia in the early 90s. to denote regula And the important role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country A us. In the era of administrative-planned economy in the USSR, the need for such a term did not exist, because the entire economic system is essentially about h started PP. There was no alternative system of principles from the state I decisions on investment by private businesses, the entire business strategy T economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined by the target n centralized from a single economic center. In the system d the principles of a market economy, it was a super-industrial policy with its own With struggles, shortcomings and even failures. Need for p notation O whether states are involved in the development and implementation of a long-term strategy h development of priority industries under the dominance of the Russian Federation s overnight relationships arose due to completely obvious “market failures” in the field of projects not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions e of state industrial policy, we will consider the fundamentals V some of them, namely:

• the influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production;
• government activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms;
• the impact of the state on the sectoral structure of production;
• the state's ability to stimulate the investment process.

1. Competitiveness

The need for the state to increase the competitiveness of industrial production is dictated by such fundamental differences in the modern developed market economy as the increasing intellectualization of industrial production, the strengthening of the role of innovation and the transnationalization of the activities of industrial firms.

As a result, the competitiveness of the country's industry increasingly depends on factors such as the quality of labor resources, the strength of ties between industrial firms, higher education institutions and research institutes, the ability to creatively master foreign technologies, the speed of spread of technological and other innovations in industry; the capacity of the domestic market and the level of requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics, the presence of clusters of technologically related and geographically close enterprises producing products that are in demand in foreign markets. The role of the state, which not only finances the bulk of general education institutions and universities, but also to a large extent determines the attitude of society towards education and the prestige of the profession of a scientist and teacher, in creating an education system that meets the requirements of modern industrial production, is very significant. It is clear that proactive government industrial policy must be supported by a focused education policy. For countries with economies in transition, the highest priority areas include a sharp expansion of training of specialists in the field of management, marketing and business law. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and high-priority applied scientific research programs, a very large positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas. Firstly, the creation of government structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities. Secondly, state coordination of R&D programs, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as government research organizations, participate. An important factor in maintaining the competitiveness of a country's industry is the presence of conditions conducive to the rapid spread of technological and other innovations in it. Since these conditions are determined primarily by the dynamics of the investment process, government activities in this regard are implemented in the sphere of macroeconomic policy, the success of which depends on the ability to create a favorable investment climate through monetary and fiscal policies. In addition, due to the fact that the lack of financial resources among small innovating firms very often serves as an insurmountable barrier at the stage of introducing scientific and technical knowledge into new, economically viable technological processes and types of products, the state should help expand the possibilities of financing innovative business. The state has the opportunity to have a significant influence on such conditions for the competitiveness of the country's industry, such as the presence of a capacious domestic market and the strict requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics. All developed market economy countries, in order to maintain the competitiveness of their industries, stimulate demand for high-tech products through government procurement in industries owned by the state or under strict state regulation (electric power industry, primarily nuclear, telecommunications, aviation and railway transport), as well as to meet the military needs of the country. At the same time, discrimination against foreign companies producing similar products is widely practiced.

2. Improving market mechanisms

State activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms and mitigate their inherent imperfections are the second important component of modern industrial policy. The areas in which imperfections in market coordination mechanisms appear are different: Firstly, the production of public goods and services (for example, scientific research, health services, weapons production, etc.). It is believed that in the production of these types of goods there is a fundamental difference between the parameters of efficiency on the basis of which private firms operate and efficiency from the point of view of society as a whole. Secondly, market imperfections are associated with the consequences of interdependence and complementarity of investments, manifested in the form of “externalities”, in particular when part of the profit from a particular investment can be “captured” by other investors associated with it. Thirdly, competition through innovation can hardly satisfy the principles of perfect competition. “Competition through new products and processes,” states the work of American economists, “is imperfect both in essence and in results... Without the lure of higher returns, there would be no motive for innovation.” As industrial development takes on an increasingly innovative character , and innovative competition, in fact, is imperfect, with huge external effects, a strong monopoly element, then the possibilities for the development of industrial production based solely on market coordination mechanisms seem to be very limited. Finally, fourthly, a market economy is characterized by complex problems that complicate the distribution of resources with an emphasis on the long term.

In a market economy, comprehensive information support for industrial firms is a necessary condition for their survival and effective operation. A huge amount of work on collecting and publishing information of an economic, scientific, technical, demographic and similar nature, widely used by industrial firms when making investment and other decisions, is carried out in countries with developed market economies by government departments, although they, of course, are not the only source of information used. information firms.

It should be emphasized that government agencies disseminate the information they collect without any restrictions and at affordable prices. Much attention is paid to the use of information collected by the state to develop a system of indicators used to analyze the state of general economic conditions and its short-term forecasting. A very important aspect of the state’s information activity in market economy countries is the development of medium- and long-term forecasts for economic development, including industry, countries and world markets for the most important industrial goods.

3.Formation of the technological base

The achievement of dynamic competitive advantages of state industrial policy can also be influenced by influencing the technologies used in the country's industry and, accordingly, its industrial structure. The most obvious influence of the state on the technological structure of industrial production was manifested in the creation of state industrial enterprises and the nationalization of entire industries. At the same time, the historical experience of market economies does not provide grounds for unambiguous and unconditional assessments of the role of state entrepreneurship in the development of industrial production. If we assume that by means of state policy it is possible to increase the national income of a country at the expense of its competitors by stimulating technologies and industries that generate higher “rent” than other technologies and industries, then, obviously, the presence of such an opportunity for a long time contradicts the operating conditions systems of competitive markets and industries with free intercountry and intersectoral flow of capital.

The creation of state industrial companies is not the only and, in modern conditions, far from the most optimal instrument for the state to influence the technological structure of the country’s industry.

4. Carrot and stick for investment

Another, no less important task of the state’s macroeconomic policy, as applied to the problems of modernizing the country’s industrial structure, is to create favorable conditions for a dynamic investment process.

The following instruments of government influence on the dynamics of the investment process are actively used:

• public investment, and not only in infrastructure;
• tax incentives for investment;
• containment of prices for equipment through preferential customs duties on its import;
• influencing interest rates and maintaining them below market levels.

A bank loan plays a very important role in financing investment programs, and the state actively influenced both the cost of the loan and the direction of its flows. The dominant role was played by internal sources (retained earnings and depreciation charges) and bank loans. State financial institutions played an important role in financing investment programs in many dynamically developing countries. The state's influence on price proportions in order to stimulate the investment process was not limited to the regulation of interest rates. World Bank experts point out that in these countries, tax, tariff and exchange rate policies not only removed part of the investment risk from investor firms and moderately suppressed interest rates, but also controlled the import of capital, and also maintained relatively low prices for investment goods .At the same time, the possibilities of using price imbalances created by government regulation in order to stimulate the investment process and economic growth of the country are significantly narrowing as its involvement in global economic relations increases. And about another option for stimulating investment policy aimed at developing the real sector of the economy, use of the tax system. We can distinguish two most important directions of the state’s tax policy that can have a significant impact on the development of the country’s industry.

Firstly, by influencing through taxes the level of savings of the population, depreciation funds of firms and their retained earnings, i.e., the size of potential sources of financing of investment programs of firms, the state is able to influence the most important macroeconomic proportions, in particular the distribution of national income between accumulation and consumption.

Secondly, using targeted tax incentives, as well as legislation regarding depreciation, the state is able to influence the ratio between firms’ investments in the active and passive parts of fixed assets, the rate of reproduction of fixed capital in the country’s industry, and stimulate the investment activities of firms in priority areas. state directions, influence the regional placement of industrial investments.

5. Problems of state support for industry in Russia

It is obvious that if the main goal of the economic reform being carried out in Russia is the creation of a modern market economy, then the Russian state is obliged to perform the functions listed above, which are characteristic of all countries with a market economy. At the same time, the peculiarities of the current situation in the economy of our country require that the state not be limited only to these functions.

Overcoming negative trends in Russian industrial production and creating the preconditions for fundamental changes in its structure is impossible without a meaningful and targeted state industrial policy, and in the most favorable version, this policy should serve as an instrument for implementing the country's industrial development strategy based on public consensus. Such a strategy should be determined taking into account the uniqueness of the current situation in Russia. This uniqueness is due to a whole complex of technological and socio-political factors.

In socio-political terms, the current situation in Russia is determined by the sharp differentiation of incomes between a small group of the population and the bulk of it. During the years of reforms, a middle class has not developed in Russia, in the absence of which it is impossible to create a market economy of mass consumption and an adequate stable political regime of social-democratic or liberal orientation.

Meanwhile, until now, the transformation of the Russian economy is taking place in the absence of any meaningful strategy for the industrial development of the country. In countries with a democratic orientation, the determination of an industrial development strategy is not the exclusive prerogative of central government bodies. This matter requires the active participation of representatives of industrial business circles, trade unions, independent research organizations, and regional authorities. At the same time, central government structures, acting as a participant and coordinator of the development of the country’s industrial development strategy, offer their assessments of the prospects for the development of the world economy and its individual regions (primarily those most closely related to the country’s industry), world markets for important industrial goods, scientific and technical progress, environmental situation, etc., formulate their ideas about the desired directions of industrial development of the country.

For such work, certain organizational structures are created in which there is a thorough discussion of problems related to the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country, including problems of a sectoral and regional nature. The activities of such structures not only make it possible to get a more complete and clear picture of the problems and prospects for the development of the country's industry, its most vulnerable areas, potential sources of growth and competitive advantages, but also creates the prerequisites for the formation of public consensus regarding the vision of the future of the country's industry. Such consent serves, in particular, as an important condition for the rapid legislative implementation of measures in the field of industrial policy. The function of the leader in the creation and coordination of the activities of these structures should be performed by an authoritative department of the executive branch, therefore the Japanese experience deserves the closest study and use.

We have to admit that at present there is no department in the executive power of Russia that, due to its intellectual potential and authority, can assume the functions of initiator and coordinator of the development of a strategy for the country's industrial development. The development of public consensus regarding the vision of the future of Russia is also complicated by the blurred values ​​of the main part of the country's population due to the collapse of the totalitarian atheistic state and the negative consequences of the reforms currently being implemented for the majority of the country's population. Realizing that the development of a strategy for the industrial development of a country and an adequate state industrial policy requires colossal collective efforts, we note only some of the contours of such a strategy and policy. A strategy for the industrial development of a country involves identifying the main goals in a more or less long term, the main obstacles to implementation of these goals and means of overcoming these obstacles and achieving the set goals. The most important strategic goals for the development of Russian industry should, it seems, include the preservation and improvement of the main elements of life support infrastructure, improving the quality of life (physical and mental health of the nation, ecology, education and housing) ; maintaining a sufficient level of the country's defense capability.

The main obstacles to the implementation of these goals are the continuing development of a deep and protracted general economic and industrial crisis, without any positive changes in the technological structure of industrial production, an increasingly deepening gap between the financial sector and the state of Russian industry, and an increasing shortage of investment resources. Russia's state industrial policy should be focused on overcoming these obstacles and be proactive in nature, based on a vision of the desired image of the industrial structure in a more or less long-term perspective. As for the technological structure of Russian industry, it should be built on the basis of a thorough assessment of the existing scientific and technological potential taking into account the main directions of world scientific and technological progress and a number of factors. To do this, it is necessary to determine: in which technologies, based on considerations of national security in its various aspects, one’s own production potential is needed and what level it should reach; in which technologies Russia has a chance to achieve a breakthrough and strengthen its competitiveness; satisfying what needs is appropriate through the import of industrial products and technologies. Based on this, the following directions of government activity within the framework of industrial policy can be determined. There is a need for active, coordinating activities of government departments in the field of technological forecasting and the development of a set of criteria on the basis of which priority technologies for Russian industry should be selected.

The state can help increase the technological potential of Russian industry, both by creating closed systems of “research and development production of high-tech products in Russian companies large-scale purchases of these products by the state” that are poorly accessible to foreign competition, and by stimulating the influx of foreign capital and technology through the admission of foreign companies to the production of high-tech products in the country and government procurement of these products. Most likely, both options should be combined depending on the state of scientific and technological potential in specific areas of science and technology. Government funding for basic science and applied scientific research is needed for priority technologies. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and the highest priority programs of applied scientific research, an important positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas: the creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities; coordination activities of the state in conducting R&D, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as state research organizations, participate.

Updating the technological structure of Russian industry is possible only in the conditions of a dynamic investment process, which crucially depends on the tax, budget and monetary policies of the state. This implies the need to reform the tax system with an emphasis on creating preferential conditions for savings and capital accumulation, as well as liberalizing monetary policy and creating conditions for additional emissions into industrial investments. In this regard, it seems necessary to create state investment development banks, without which a quick way out of the deep investment crisis is hardly possible. A realistic assessment of the capabilities of the capital market as a source of financing investment programs requires recognizing that its role in Russia for many years to come will most likely be generally insignificant. Therefore, the state should focus primarily on creating conditions that stimulate its own sources of accumulation in industrial structures (depreciation policy is important in this regard) and providing these structures with long-term credit resources.

The critical situation in Russian industry with non-payments dictates the need for an active state policy at the microeconomic level, including: - the allocation of large industrial enterprises and financial and industrial groups that, due to their technological and managerial potential and financial condition, are capable of playing the role of leaders; creating conditions that facilitate the absorption by leaders or their taking control of industrial enterprises that have technological development potential, but do not have the financial capacity to implement it; liquidation of industrial enterprises that are hopeless in all respects while simultaneously retraining their personnel and providing them with employment.

Despite the importance of the active state policy to create a competitive economic environment through privatization, demonopolization, and support for small-scale industrial entrepreneurship, the state should promote the development of cooperation between both major social groups and enterprises within industries and their complexes.

The development of social partnership at the level of “state - industrial sectoral associations - trade unions” could help maintain macroeconomic stabilization through the implementation of one or another policy of regulating prices and incomes. With all the dangers that the cartelization of industry is fraught with, the creation of industry associations of industrial enterprises such as cartels (on a temporary basis and with the development of clear criteria for the activities of firms included in the cartels) could help stabilize industrial production and modernize its technological base. An important direction of state industrial policy in in the coming years there should be a mitigation of the negative social consequences caused by changes in the structure of industrial production. It is obvious that this problem will be especially acute over the coming years. To mitigate it, the state is obliged to implement a whole range of measures, including a broad program of public works (in particular, to modernize infrastructure), a program to retrain the workforce and increase its mobility, as well as provide sufficient protection from excessive foreign competition in the industries that are most important from the point of view of maintaining employment. Finally, it is necessary to significantly increase the efficiency of management of industrial enterprises that remain state property.

Conclusion

In recent years, the problem of government influence on the industrial development of the country has become increasingly relevant. In this regard, the state industrial policy of Russia should now become an integral part of the state economic policy (SEP), largely ensuring the achievement of its goals. Therefore, the development and implementation of GPP is the most important task of public administration. Determining the features of the formation and implementation mechanism of state industrial policy is one of the most important theoretical, methodological and practical tasks of market transformations.

The degree of development of the problem. One of the reasons for the underestimation of state industrial policy in the management system of a transition economy is the weakness of scientific study of the significance of the state industrial policy for the Russian economy.

Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that on a common platform, the needs for the implementation of PP have risen and many doctrines are competing with each other. All considered concepts differ in methods of implementation, in methods of implementation, in a system of goals and values. The need for a holistic state industrial and economic strategy is obvious and relevant throughout all the years of radical economic reforms. Almost all sensible and nationally oriented groups in society are in favor of PP. Against the PP are only the top of cosmopolitan capital in the largest domestic raw materials companies and the ruling bureaucracy serving their interests. It is obvious that the absence of PP in the context of the rapid degradation of the industrial base and social conditions of life of the country is nonsense, explained by the unity and organization of its opponents while the disunity of its supporters. The main subject of industrial development is always the state represented by a set of institutions of economic power that set the “rules of the game” in industrial strategy and select winners and losers, i.e. partially replacing the functions of market competition, which liberals are always so afraid of. In addition, home-grown interpreters of Hayek-Mises ideas are so obviously tied to the interests of energy and raw materials companies built into the global market for these products that any talk about PP is perceived by them absolutely “correctly”, since in modern Russian conditions this means an inevitable redistribution of income from transnational "raw materials" in favor of national "industrialists" with the help of the economic power of the state. Therefore, all that liberals demand from the state is the preservation and strengthening of the “competitive” regime in the economy, “forgetting” that energy and raw materials monopolies feel most at ease in the conditions of such “competition”, cheaply buying up all the necessary resources within the country (including labor strength and government support in the form, for example, of the notorious mineral extraction tax, which created unprecedented opportunities for avoiding taxation of differential rent) and selling finished products at high prices both on the world and on the domestic market. Super profits end up in offshore zones and Western banks.

PP issues are real political-economic issues in the theory and practice of reforms, because they affect the fundamental economic interests of the main strata of society. They address deep issues of creation, distribution and appropriation of social wealth. And as long as economic power is in the hands of “transnationals,” the state will diligently avoid issues of industrial strategy, replacing it with such “important” reforms as the monetization of benefits, the commercialization of science and education, endless shake-ups of the management apparatus, etc.

Literature

1. Zevin L.Z. “Economic structures of different levels in global processes: features of interaction. Scientific report from IMEPI RAS. - M: EPICON, 2009, pp. 8-9.
2. Tatarkin A. Industrial policy as the basis for systemic modernization of the Russian economy // Probl. theory and practice of management. - 2011- N 1. - P.8-21.
3. Pilipenko I. Cluster policy in Russia // Society and Economics. - 2009- N 8. - P.28-64.
4. Industrial Gazette No. 8-9(19-20) April 2010
5. Zavadnikov V. Industrial policy in Russia / V. Zavadnikov, Yu. Kuznetsov // Econ. policy. - 2011. - N 3. - P.5-17.
6. Zeltyn A.S. State industrial policy in market economies // ECO. - 2012. - N 3. - P.42-60.
7. Ivanov V.S. Rational management of territory as a factor in the development of industrial policy // Microeconomics. - 2009. - N 5. - P.124-127.
8. Abramov M. On industrial policy and tax regulation // Free Thought. - 2009. - N 1. - P.101-116.
9. Abramov M.D. Industrial policy and tax regulation // EKO. - 2009. - N 1. - P. 165-173.

Other similar works that may interest you.vshm>
17025.		Industrial policy under the resource curse: between Scylla and Charybdis	12.66 KB
	This is due to the fact that these countries mainly import finished products, prices for which in the long term grow faster than prices for raw materials. However, a large-scale study of 25 types of primary products over a time period of more than 350 years for some of them showed that this thesis is not true for all types of raw materials and not for all time periods3. With increasing inflow foreign currency associated with favorable external conditions Central bank forced to buy surpluses of this currency in order to keep...
3217.		State migration policy of the Russian Federation	61.76 KB
	Creating conditions for attracting qualified legal labor resources to the Russian Federation, improving migration registration foreign citizens, combating illegal migration, as well as a set of measures to support internal labor migration cannot be carried out without collecting and analyzing qualitative and detailed information about migration.
3882.		State policy in the field of combating corruption	45.75 KB
	The problem of corruption has been repeatedly identified by state leaders as a systemic problem. Systemic corruption is a recognition of the fact that corruption is not only widespread, but also reproduced at various levels of the state apparatus and society.
13085.		State policy in the field of immunoprevention of infectious diseases	19.55 KB
	State policy in the field of immunization is aimed at preventing, limiting the spread and eliminating infectious diseases through preventive vaccinations. Immunoprophylaxis a system of measures carried out to prevent the spread and elimination of infections through preventive vaccinations. vaccinations regulatory legal act establishing the timing and procedure for carrying out professional vaccinations for citizens. vaccinations.
21061.		STATE POLICY IN RELATION TO YOUNG FAMILIES (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF RF REGIONS)	89.33 KB
	And since the family reacts very quickly and sensitively to all positive and negative changes occurring in society, it needs social protection from the outside government agencies dealing with issues related to such groups of people as young families. History does not know states of cities of major historical periods that could do without a family. Human culture cannot be imagined without the family of love of children of marital and kinship relationships. The family policy of most civilized states considers one of the main tasks...
12288.		Youth state policy using the example of the Department of Youth Affairs of the Kirov Region	146.28 KB
	Organizational and legal characteristics of the Department of Youth Affairs of the Kirov Region. Optimization of the activities of the Youth Affairs Department. Requires development and implementation effective methods the work of state authorities and local governments to unlock the potential of modern youth and use it in the innovative interests of the state.
7338.		State policy and regulation of innovation activity in modern conditions of development of the Republic of Belarus	50.95 KB
	Key Concepts: innovation strategy priority areas factors of economic growth in innovation policy legal basis and organs government regulation innovative activities forming a knowledge economy. The goals of innovation policy are to increase the contribution of science to the development of the country's economy, ensure progressive changes in the structure of the national economy and production, increase the competitiveness of the national economy in the world market, improve environmental...
21062.		STATE POLICY IN THE FIELD OF YOUTH EMPLOYMENT (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF MUNICIPAL UNITS OF THE KRASNODAR REGION)	1.17 MB
	On modern stage youth are one of the most widely studied categories of the population. However, in recent years, there has been an increasingly acute need, both in science and in practice, for a more in-depth analysis of youth problems, which involves a holistic approach to the study of the entire diversity of social connections and manifestations of the younger generation, i.e. its development, interaction between youth and society. This is due to the presence of serious social problem, expressed in the contradiction between
6298.		CONTENT AND FUNCTIONS OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL FINANCES, THEIR COMPOSITION. STATE FINANCIAL POLICY. STATE REGULATION OF FINANCE	29.88 KB
	Content and direction financial policy. The main directions of modern financial policy of the Russian Federation. Basic methods and forms of government and municipal finances In a broad sense, there are several forms and methods of managing state finances: financial planning; forecasting; programming; financial regulation; financial control; adoption of financial legislation; system of methods for mobilizing financial resources. Financial planning is part of the national economic...
17301.		Civil service	41.75 KB
	Main function like civil service so and municipal service- to serve society for this purpose it is created to ensure a stable connection between the state and society of the state and its citizens in their activities to practically implement democratic principles to expand the conditions for the creation of civil society to motivate the development of its self-government activities through professional management work to delegate management functions to public institutions to citizens as much as possible in a word to develop and ...